Evolutionists and Old Earthers, do you object to anything that this video is presenting, or the conclusions that they draw?

If you reference the video, please give a specific time, so we can follow your logic.

I have posted at length in multiple threads about my objections to this video. In the heart of it there are valid experiments in sedimentation, but the many (really most) of the conclusions reached about stratigraphy are not supported by these experiments. The contention that the Principle of Superposition is falsified or invalidated is totally unsupported by the experiments. Quite frankly some of the so-called geology given here is so embarrassing that I would recommend YECs to cease using it. For one thing it essentially denigrates the still valid work of a great pioneer in stratigraphy (Steno) in its attempt to ultimately attack (and fail to falsify) the Principle of Faunal Succession.

"I have a good argument, but you just have to look for it." Lol, well then it shouldn't be too tough to make a strong rebuttal that we may discuss in this current thread.

The truth is that we don't care what geode says about that video clip because what he says in response doesn't make common sense. Any creationist on this website that has read his stuff knows that. The presentation is an excellent reasoning why uniformitarian principles and/or neo-Darwinian ideas of earths geologic past are in error. Similarly good was the clip by John Morris.

I see, can you post links to those lengthy objections. I wouldn't know exactly what I was searching for, or what threads you are referring to. Thanks.

Many of posts can be found by searching on key words like "Superposition" and "Berthualt"...the last word is the name of the stratigrapher involved with the experiments who apparently supplied the erroneous conclusions that are given either by him in the video, or by the host.

Not going to happen. the reason you don;t like this evidence as to the reason you would want YECs to quit using it is because it's to good and too convincing. This is a very well known tactic.

It is not at all convincing to anyone that has much of a knowledge of geology. As I posted once before, students paying attention in an Historical Geology class (often taken as a Freshman course in college) would see through the error in many of the conclusions given, such as the one about Superposition. Simply observing sedimentation occuring in the field will give the person observing this evidence to the contrary of how it is claimed in the video that all rock layers are formed.

The conclusions are not properly drawn from the evidence shown in the flume experiments, and valid principles are distorted to the point of being ridiculous in order to make these points. Anyone can test the false definition of the Principle of Superposition that is used here. I posted how this could be done and nobody took me up on it. I think this came from the fear that in doing as I outlined, the only possible conclusion is that the claim in the video is incorrect and therefore the foundation that the final conclusions made in the video are based upon is non-existent in terms of correct science.

YECs really should abandon this one as it does not help their cause in terms of their being perceived to care about an honest pursuit of science. If it does convince anybody of its conclusions, this is done using false pretenses. On balance it contains some of the poorest explanations of geology that I have ever encountered. It shows the lengths that some are willing to go (Guy Berthault for one) in terms of distorting geology to try and support their model. It is rather slickly put together, and showing actual sedimentation experiments allows the producers to give it some feel of being authentic, but most of the conclusions that do not relate directly to bedforms created in high velocity flow conditions exist in some fictious universe with a Bizarro World relationship to the science of geology.

I have posted at length in multiple threads about my objections to this video. In the heart of it there are valid experiments in sedimentation, but the many (really most) of the conclusions reached about stratigraphy are not supported by these experiments. The contention that the Principle of Superposition is falsified or invalidated is totally unsupported by the experiments. Quite frankly some of the so-called geology given here is so embarrassing that I would recommend YECs to cease using it. For one thing it essentially denigrates the still valid work of a great pioneer in stratigraphy (Steno) in its attempt to ultimately attack (and fail to falsify) the Principle of Faunal Succession.

You can find several references to this video in past threads.

Double standard? It should be emberassing to you to even question the results. The experiments give us an empirical mechanism of how heterogeneous strata were formed, which is corroborated by the entire geologic column on the face of the earth. To scrutinize these experiments is akin to arguing for a flat earth.

Double standard? It should be emberassing to you to even question the results. The experiments give us an empirical mechanism of how heterogeneous strata were formed, which is corroborated by the entire geologic column on the face of the earth. To scrutinize these experiments is akin to arguing for a flat earth.

Enjoy.

I already commented upon the nature of the evidence, and that there are valid conclusions that can be drawn from the results. The strata formed in the experiment under the conditions of flow are consistent with what was already known from previous experiments and field studies. Such sedimentation is known in the rock record, but it is hardly a typical case or the most common form of sedimentation. Most of the Geologic Column is made up of strata that did not form from sedimentation such as shown in the experiments and therefore your statement is not correct. The video claims that all sedimentation and therefore all of stratigraphy was done in a sideways manner. Anyone can observe today how false that claim is by going to where a river is currently depositing point bars or channel bars, where muds are accumulating in lakes, and where sand dunes have formed, etc.

Geology is a fascinating subject that I would recommend to anyone with an interest to study. Taking an Historical Geology class would provide much background allowing a more detailed discussion of what was presented in the video to those who are interested. But there really is no substitute for actual observations in sedimentary environments to get a grasp upon what occurs and an understanding of the geology involved.

I really did not question the results of the sedimentation experiments. I questioned the conclusions drawn in the video which mis-interpreted those results.

It is not at all convincing to anyone that has much of a knowledge of geology. As I posted once before, students paying attention in an Historical Geology class (often taken as a Freshman course in college) would see through the error in many of the conclusions given, such as the one about Superposition. Simply observing sedimentation occuring in the field will give the person observing this evidence to the contrary of how it is claimed in the video that all rock layers are formed.

The conclusions are not properly drawn from the evidence shown in the flume experiments, and valid principles are distorted to the point of being ridiculous in order to make these points. Anyone can test the false definition of the Principle of Superposition that is used here. I posted how this could be done and nobody took me up on it. I think this came from the fear that in doing as I outlined, the only possible conclusion is that the claim in the video is incorrect and therefore the foundation that the final conclusions made in the video are based upon is non-existent in terms of correct science.

YECs really should abandon this one as it does not help their cause in terms of their being perceived to care about an honest pursuit of science. If it does convince anybody of its conclusions, this is done using false pretenses. On balance it contains some of the poorest explanations of geology that I have ever encountered. It shows the lengths that some are willing to go (Guy Berthault for one) in terms of distorting geology to try and support their model. It is rather slickly put together, and showing actual sedimentation experiments allows the producers to give it some feel of being authentic, but most of the conclusions that do not relate directly to bedforms created in high velocity flow conditions exist in some fictious universe with a Bizarro World relationship to the science of geology.

The error you see so plainly is that the film does not support or conform to evolution. If this were being used to support evolution would you have the same problem? I very seriously doubt it.

The error you see so plainly is that the film does not support or conform to evolution. If this were being used to support evolution would you have the same problem? I very seriously doubt it.

I think the majority of my posts in the forum have been about the incorrect interpretation / use of geology or paleontology and attempting to dispel misunderstandings about the subject. I would have the same problems with the video that I have noted if it made baseless claims about geology in order to support evolution. I have found fault and errors in technical articles about geology in mainstream journals from authors accepting an old earth and evolution.

I also take exception to the misuse of science to support or prop up evolution. If one cannot support their viewpoint through honest and valid arguments, they should find arguments that are solid, honest and valid. If this cannot be done they should review whether or not that viewpoint is worthy of their support.

As a geologist I rarely deal directly with the subject of evolution. On the other hand I routinely use the principles of geology that have been maligned in this video. I think these principles are well worthy of being defended.

It is not at all convincing to anyone that has much of a knowledge of geology. As I posted once before, students paying attention in an Historical Geology class (often taken as a Freshman course in college) would see through the error in many of the conclusions given, such as the one about Superposition. Simply observing sedimentation occuring in the field will give the person observing this evidence to the contrary of how it is claimed in the video that all rock layers are formed.

The conclusions are not properly drawn from the evidence shown in the flume experiments, and valid principles are distorted to the point of being ridiculous in order to make these points. Anyone can test the false definition of the Principle of Superposition that is used here. I posted how this could be done and nobody took me up on it. I think this came from the fear that in doing as I outlined, the only possible conclusion is that the claim in the video is incorrect and therefore the foundation that the final conclusions made in the video are based upon is non-existent in terms of correct science.

YECs really should abandon this one as it does not help their cause in terms of their being perceived to care about an honest pursuit of science. If it does convince anybody of its conclusions, this is done using false pretenses. On balance it contains some of the poorest explanations of geology that I have ever encountered. It shows the lengths that some are willing to go (Guy Berthault for one) in terms of distorting geology to try and support their model. It is rather slickly put together, and showing actual sedimentation experiments allows the producers to give it some feel of being authentic, but most of the conclusions that do not relate directly to bedforms created in high velocity flow conditions exist in some fictious universe with a Bizarro World relationship to the science of geology.

Not going to happen. the reason you don;t like this evidence as to the reason you would want YECs to quit using it is because it's to good and too convincing. This is a very well known tactic.

"I have a good argument, but you just have to look for it." Lol, well then it shouldn't be too tough to make a strong rebuttal that we may discuss in this current thread.

No, that is not it at all. I just am tired of typing over and over again the same objections to what is stated in the video. I have posted rebuttal to the video that would fill a few pages. If anyone searches on the key words I indicated the posts I have made, or posts to which I replied pop up rather quickly. As it is I have posted yet again about my main objection to the conclusions in the video, the one that many others are based upon, and that is the erroneous claim that the Principle of Superposition has been falsified.

I made that post suggesting using keywords during a five minute break from work. Quite frankly I had a need for choosing to use my time in a more productive way for to be honest it is also frustrating to have taken a lot of time in the past to post rebuttals and generally not been given replies that attempt counter what I have posted. In addition it is also frustrating when the same people that actually have attempted to seriously discuss this topic in response to objections I have given go on to post this video again and again supporting its conclusions, without making reference to the prior discussions. I subsequently discovered that somebody had handily refuted the claim made about the Principle of Superposition before I had done so, in response to the same person that brought the subject up again as if it was hard and fast science and not disputed. I have seen the same poster bring this up yet again after all of my posting (and the poster before me) as if I had never taken the time to do so. Once again the same objections were raised and my posts were even specifically mentioned. The posts must not be very hard to find for anyone that is serious in discussing this topic.

What I just described is not how an article in a peer-reviewed scientific journal is written. That is part of the process of conducting science properly. To ignore objections is considered deceptive and unethical. A properly written scientific article, or scientific discussion will acknowledge the various viewpoints that have been given already.

I told you before that I am NOT going to fool with you. You've been avoiding the truth since the old days we clashed on imdb. You weren't honest with the facts then and you aren't being honest now. Post others, Mr. rock.

I told you before that I am NOT going to fool with you. You've been avoiding the truth since the old days we clashed on imdb. You weren't honest with the facts then and you aren't being honest now. Post others, Mr. rock.

I have always been honest with the facts. I think a false accusation such as this really needs some supporting material, such as proof that I have ever posted something that I do not hold to be correct and true. There are people who post opinions different than mine, and although I think those opinions are incorrect at times they are often offered honestly.

I only post what I honestly perceive to be correct about the topics I am commenting upon, and I usually post about topics that I have taken the time to study and as such have become informed enough to make posts that actually add to a discussion, whether or not others agree with my position or not. If somebody does not agree with me that of course is their right, but it does not mean that I have been dishonest.

You say that you are not going to fool with me, yet you went out of your way to post to me and make false accusations. In my opinion I post without pretense. I am not pretending to be something that I am not. In the case of the topic I am in fact a geologist with two degrees in the subject including an advanced degree. I have followed this formal education with 32 years of work in the field of geology where I have encountered aspects of stratigraphy and sedimentation almost on a daily basis. I post from the position of having a firm and solid knowledge of geology. If I take exception with a false claim about geologic principles I do so from a position of somebody that is informed.

I have always been honest with the facts. I think a false accusation such as this really needs some supporting material, such as proof that I have ever posted something that I do not hold to be correct and true. There are people who post opinions different than mine, and although I think those opinions are incorrect at times they are often offered honestly.

I only post what I honestly perceive to be correct about the topics I am commenting upon, and I usually post about topics that I have taken the time to study and as such have become informed enough to make posts that actually add to a discussion, whether or not others agree with my position or not. If somebody does not agree with me that of course is their right, but it does not mean that I have been dishonest.

You say that you are not going to fool with me, yet you went out of your way to post to me and make false accusations. In my opinion I post without pretense. I am not pretending to be something that I am not. In the case of the topic I am in fact a geologist with two degrees in the subject including an advanced degree. I have followed this formal education with 32 years of work in the field of geology where I have encountered aspects of stratigraphy and sedimentation almost on a daily basis. I post from the position of having a firm and solid knowledge of geology. If I take exception with a false claim about geologic principles I do so from a position of somebody that is informed.

What would you think of a person who went to a college that was Christian and got the same degrees you have but was taught creation instead?Would you deem them as educated as yourself or maybe educated with false assumptions and lies?

So when we see someone as educated as you by a college that is secular and will make all the evidence comform to that secular view we don;t look at it as really knowing anything.

All the degrees in the world won;t help you get to Heaven when you use them to claim or imply that God and His word are a lie. But then again maybe that's not your goal. Because if it was I don;t think you would be doing what you are doing and saying what you are saying. And do you think those degrees are going to matter to God on judgment day? Do you think they make you smarter than God to where you can correct His word and correct him on judgment day? I think you do. You have illustrated, implied that everything science says supercedes God.

Do you believe science supercedes God? If you say no then why not list the things concerning science that you would deem God more knowledgable on? You cannot because what you believe makes God weak and stupid just so you can look smarter along with your peers. You will never get that the reason we don;t get along is not because I am YEC. It's because when it comes to things concerning God, you will take the atheist side more than 90% of the time. And when it comes to making a choice on what you will defend, God or His word is not where near first on that list. You put science and evolution above God and His Word. Do you really think God is going to forget how many times you have dome this? How many times you have taken and made the new in Christ question their faith or even turn away from it because you imply that God cannot do what he claimed He did?

How you going to feel when you get to Heaven and find out that your copromise of God's word on several levels has actually put some people in Hell? You know that evolution has the ability to make the Christian question their faith so you also know what can happen when someone starts to question their faith. But do you care? No because you attempt that everyday here.

So you know someone can be made to turn away from God through evolution, right? So what makes what you do any different from them when you promote the same exact thing?

You know how I know how evolution is so dangerous? On other forums I watch Christians turn away from God. Many of them first choose TE before atheism. And what TE did was confirmed in their minds that their is no God which makes TE just a stepping stone to atheism. But do you care? I doubt it. Because if you did you would not be a TE because you would notice the danger just from observation. But let's be frank, you see it and don;t care because you are a part of it.

Now you can get mad all you like. But I have Fred's backing in this because he see's the same thing I do about you along with everyone else at this forum. You have slipped over to the atheist side so much so that you now debate just like one. You use their predictable responses. The only thing is you have not admitted it to yourself. Basically you are an atheist in denial. How many more steps do you think it would take from your current position to just be on the other side? One? That what I see,

1) You already believe their main secular idea.2) You have already used that idea several times her to imply that God and His word lies.3) You will defend them and take their side on every issue.4) And I doubt you couls name even one area of science that you would say God superceded because you believe science supercedes God.5) You use their arguments against God's word on creation. you also use it against the Christian faith.

So from that stand point what exactly is it that God is supposed to reconize you as being saved? And that is why we now see you as an atheist because we cannot tell you apart from them.

I have posted at length in multiple threads about my objections to this video. In the heart of it there are valid experiments in sedimentation, but the many (really most) of the conclusions reached about stratigraphy are not supported by these experiments. The contention that the Principle of Superposition is falsified or invalidated is totally unsupported by the experiments. Quite frankly some of the so-called geology given here is so embarrassing that I would recommend YECs to cease using it. For one thing it essentially denigrates the still valid work of a great pioneer in stratigraphy (Steno) in its attempt to ultimately attack (and fail to falsify) the Principle of Faunal Succession.

You can find several references to this video in past threads.

Geode,

What you continue to deny is that the Principle of Superpostion, as it was originally stated, is APPLIED as a universal justification for a slow sedimentation mentality, that says one entire layer or stratum was completely finished, before the subsequent stratum was deposited. The experiments show that this is not necessarily the case, as we can see with our own eyes how a stratum upstream can be started while the stratum below it continues to build downstream--so that the two are contemperaneous, with parts of the upper stratum being deposited before parts of the lower.

But more importantly, the experiments show a mechanism for rapid sedimentation, and therefore an ACTUAL deposition process in water current. It undermines the thought processes that originally calculated sedimentation rates, and 'millions of years' geology.